example of doublespeak i guess

[Jimbo]

Thanks brad but you did not exactly leave me an out the facts seem to have proved my disbelief at your specified usage. Also from the article: "Computer rendering of proposed Vehicle Mounted Active Denial System prototype" and "The weapon could be fielded by 2009, officials said."

In addition you said "for example, do u know that the military/police have a microwave weapon mounted on a jeep/humv for crowd control purposes?" The year 2009 is a long way from "having" this weapon developed for everyday usage.

[brad]

------------------------------
"We've tested 72 humans that have had over 6,500 exposures," he said.

The military will test a prototype of the weapon on goats and humans in Kirtland over the next few months. The Marine Corps said $40 million was spent developing the weapon during the past decade.

The Marine Corps plans to mount the microwave weapon on top of Humvees, the Jeep-like vehicles used by both the Marines and the Army. Later it might be used on aircraft and ships, officials said.
---------------------------

and this was written in 2001 i think.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not disputing the facts of this matter but I am saying that you deliberately posted it with an incomplete comment designed to generate controversy and which comment did not portray your entire view of the situation.

In other words I believe you sometimes post in an incomplete manner which is deliberately intended to be inflammatory. What you may not realize is that this tends to detract from other posts of yours which are more completely sincere.

[brad]

not true i really think its doublespeak to say US is going to war because iraq has chemical/bio weapons and then the US admits its going to use chemical/bio weapons.

i mean, it just strikes me as ironical or hypocritical or something.

[MMMMMM]

I guess that makes sense as long as you feel that non-lethal weapons are in the same category as lethal weapons.

[brad]

well the point is that even non lethal chemical and i guess bio weapons are outlawed under international treaties that the US and almost everybody is party to.

the really funny thing is that non lethal chemical weapons are 'allowed' so to speak to control a countries own population, like as in riot control.

[IrishHand]

The US actually isn't a party to many meaningful international treaties - especially ones which might restrict their military flexibility.

[brad]

im 99% sure US is party to treaties prohibiting bio/chem weapons.

(article in my original post says so too for what thats worth)

[MMMMMM]

This war isn't really about international law or violations of international law--nor should it be. It shouldn't be about violations of UN resolutions either. What it should be about is protecting America and our allies and the region from potential assault, either directly or through proxy, by an aggressive dictator armed with some of the world's most horrific weapons--and secondly, about doing the Iraqi people a favor and ridding them of the worst tyrant and government they have ever had.

All this about the UN isn't really the point, and I think it may be a mistake--because the next time America sees the need to take action to protect itself or its allies, we will be expected to go through a process of jumping through hoops trying to obtain the approval of a bunch of dictatorial garbage governments who aren't even the ones being threatened. As icing on the cake, we are expected to obtain approval from China, which views us as its most formidable strategic adversary, and France, which seems to be happiest when finding ways to thwarting US plans, whatever they may be. In fact the best way to gain French cooperation might be to propose the opposite of what we really want.